Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You made your stance on this clear. Why would I bother discussing it further with you? Your tone in general tends to be condescending, so you can interact with someone else.I would imagine you get that response quite a bit so yeah, I would think that you would expect it.Well, I appreciate your constructive criticism, but your response is about what I expected.Sorry but that's just about the dumbest idea ever.
So 6 standing armies? Lets start there.
I do appreciate one thing about your posts. You remind me that the ignore list is useful.You made your stance on this clear. Why would I bother discussing it further with you? Your tone in general tends to be condescending, so you can interact with someone else.I would imagine you get that response quite a bit so yeah, I would think that you would expect it.Well, I appreciate your constructive criticism, but your response is about what I expected.Sorry but that's just about the dumbest idea ever.
So 6 standing armies? Lets start there.
Ahh, I see. Because I think your plan is stupid, you're just not going to support it yourself anymore.
Probably a good sign that you didn't think it through yourself.
PS: Your landlocked nations are going to have a dickens of a time exporting their crops. You didn't think that through either.
I do appreciate one thing about your posts. You remind me that the ignore list is useful.You made your stance on this clear. Why would I bother discussing it further with you? Your tone in general tends to be condescending, so you can interact with someone else.I would imagine you get that response quite a bit so yeah, I would think that you would expect it.Well, I appreciate your constructive criticism, but your response is about what I expected.Sorry but that's just about the dumbest idea ever.
So 6 standing armies? Lets start there.
Ahh, I see. Because I think your plan is stupid, you're just not going to support it yourself anymore.
Probably a good sign that you didn't think it through yourself.
PS: Your landlocked nations are going to have a dickens of a time exporting their crops. You didn't think that through either.
While that is true in this country, that's not necessarily the case in other countries. African-American culture has some unique differences from black cultures outside of America.Pretty much. It's natural for people of any race to prefer the company of their own group. Most people have an ingroup bias, because it was advantageous to have one in terms of evolution.
The only group with an outgroup bias seems to be white progressives. That's very unnatural and rather self-destructive.
That being said, I do have friends of other groups. The area I live in is somewhat diverse.
I would strongly disagree with that, particularly with blacks. When blacks get the slightest chance to move into white areas, they take it. It doesn't matter if it's through some government social program or by their own accord because they make enough money to afford to. Blacks can't wait to get away from each other. They are the only race in the world that strives to move away from their own kind.
While that is true in this country, that's not necessarily the case in other countries. African-American culture has some unique differences from black cultures outside of America.
You'll notice a big difference between many African immigrants that come here vs. African-Americans, for example.
What you're seeing with African-American culture is the effect that economics can have on neighborhoods and how certain problems within the black community cause more successful blacks to seek out whiter areas. It is funny to see certain successful blacks pretend this isn't the case though. Obama lives in one of the whitest neighborhoods in the country, but he spreads a lot of the tired rhetoric against whites.
It's like, "if whites are so bad, why live exclusively around them?"
Other minorities tend to still prefer their own company, like Latinos and various Asian groups.
If that's your answer to criticism...feel free to make use of it.
Look, if you want to support your position...do so. You're saying divide the nation into 6 nations. I said..."6 standing armies?" And your response is to bitch like a baby that someone hurt your feelings. How about sacking up and telling us why you think having 6 armies is a good thing...why the states you have deprived of a coastline would want to pay the duties and taxes to other nations to export their goods...why "swing states" would even be part of the equation.
The larger question, of course, is what would happen if the Southeast is attacked or someone blockades the Texas coast. Are the other five nations going to send assistance? Why would they?
It's your idea...support it.
Or press the ignore feature.
I don't really care but if you're going to put your ideas out there like a piñata, don't be surprised when someone beats the crap out of it.
If that's your answer to criticism...feel free to make use of it.
Look, if you want to support your position...do so. You're saying divide the nation into 6 nations. I said..."6 standing armies?" And your response is to bitch like a baby that someone hurt your feelings. How about sacking up and telling us why you think having 6 armies is a good thing...why the states you have deprived of a coastline would want to pay the duties and taxes to other nations to export their goods...why "swing states" would even be part of the equation.
The larger question, of course, is what would happen if the Southeast is attacked or someone blockades the Texas coast. Are the other five nations going to send assistance? Why would they?
It's your idea...support it.
Or press the ignore feature.
I don't really care but if you're going to put your ideas out there like a piñata, don't be surprised when someone beats the crap out of it.
Perhaps not 6, but three would be reasonable; one part of our land for Independents as well. It would be divided by residency and political affiliation. It would not mean no trade or commerce. If a foreign threat is made, then it would be up to the three countries to unite or one or two to take up the battle.
This time they even tried to take over CongressRepublicans want to secede every time they lose an election
With asshole Dems in charge who wouldn't.
If possible, should we peacefully split the country?
I respectfully disagree.My point is that most of that money - salary, facilities, dues, and most of programs - goes to entertaining oneself in a religious setting. Absolutely, I agree, some small portion of that is the pastors time consoling people for loss and such but it’s not lifting people out of poverty or curing illness which is true charity. Jesus didn’t build himself a grand theater to worship. He helped the poor and sick.If you adjust for church funding, which 90% helps church functions not people Democrats give more. Here is how churches spend money: 49% on personnel, 23% on facilities, 11% on missions, 10% on programs, 6% on dues. Almost all the charity Republicans give to churches is for themselves , not other people.Nah, they are just more gullible and give more to their churches. Those goobers will believe ANYTHING.Republicans are nicer people, they donate more to charity,
No, that's a fact. That is researched, and documented fact.
View attachment 460139
View attachment 460140
Liberal Kristof Admits Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals
Liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof once again displayed his counterintuitive bona fides. In his Sunday column, "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," Kristof (just in time for Christmas) admitted to being disturbed by a survey showing that liberals, for all their talk of compassion, are less charitable...www.mrc.org
How Political Ideology Influences Charitable Giving (Published 2018)
The authors of a new academic study explore the effect of political differences on how we give to charity.www.nytimes.com
Even Democrats admit this if they are honest. The only way left-wingers even attempt to claim they are charitable, is by claiming taxation and social programs are charity. Well that's not charity. Charity doesn't involve your income being confiscated from you by force, and given to someone else without your consent.
Charity is when you make the choice to give money without any compulsion, to another person or cause, for the benefit of a stranger.
And if tax and spend policies were in fact charity, then you wouldn't see left-wingers themselves doing everything in their power to avoid the taxation.
No, that's not true either. Pacific Garden Mission, Lutheran Ministries, Samaritan's Purse, and numerous others, are spending mostly to help people.
Further, the church itself helps people in their own functions. 49% and 23% on missions, includes for example addiction service, and counseling that is provided to church members free of charge.
My father was a free marriage and mental health counselor.
Moreover, I've seen videos where churches were used as shelters and hospitals for emergencies, like the floods out west.
Now obviously I can't speak for every single christian, or every single church, but when I talk about charity, I'm not talking about giving to the church even. I don't even include that. When I say charity, I mean money that I have given to charitable organizations that help people. Again, like those above, such as Lutheran Ministries, Samartian's Purse, Pacific Garden Mission, and others.
These are not churches. They are literally charity organizations.
Further, I think you greatly underestimate the amount of time and money given, that doesn't include dollars through the church.
For example my parents church has a group that makes food, and visits children stuck at the Ronald McDonald house. People all over the world send their kids to the US, to get health care that their socialized health care systems do not provide. But they are here alone, without friends or family. Our church sends people there all the time. They spend their time, and their own money, buying food, toys and games, and playing with these isolated people.
You can't quantify that on spreadsheet, because it isn't recorded anywhere.
I myself, have worked hours on hours at the homeless shelter. You don't see that in a ledger.
The year before last, my church ran a winter coat drive for kids in poverty, so that everyone in the city could freely get a coat for their children. We had hundreds on hundreds. So many that all the stores in the area, were completely empty of coats.
That was thousands on thousands of dollars. None of it shows up on charitable giving, and it required hundreds of hours of time by church members to organize, and then hand out the coats.
So, no. Sorry, nice thought, but no. Conservatives are vastly more charitable than left-wingers, even if you try and tease out church operational costs. Just no.
Depends on how you're defining civil rights. The concept made sense all the way through gay marriage. Shortly after the Supreme Court supported gay marriage, the left went a bit insane and started pushing the gender identity nonsense and then embraced "anti-racism", which is actually just racism against whites.I'm not affiliated with any bunch or party. And I'm actually not
conservative on all policies. I just don't care for a lot of modern progressive social views.
Like civil rights?
I respectfully disagree.My point is that most of that money - salary, facilities, dues, and most of programs - goes to entertaining oneself in a religious setting. Absolutely, I agree, some small portion of that is the pastors time consoling people for loss and such but it’s not lifting people out of poverty or curing illness which is true charity. Jesus didn’t build himself a grand theater to worship. He helped the poor and sick.If you adjust for church funding, which 90% helps church functions not people Democrats give more. Here is how churches spend money: 49% on personnel, 23% on facilities, 11% on missions, 10% on programs, 6% on dues. Almost all the charity Republicans give to churches is for themselves , not other people.Nah, they are just more gullible and give more to their churches. Those goobers will believe ANYTHING.Republicans are nicer people, they donate more to charity,
No, that's a fact. That is researched, and documented fact.
View attachment 460139
View attachment 460140
Liberal Kristof Admits Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals
Liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof once again displayed his counterintuitive bona fides. In his Sunday column, "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," Kristof (just in time for Christmas) admitted to being disturbed by a survey showing that liberals, for all their talk of compassion, are less charitable...
How Political Ideology Influences Charitable Giving (Published 2018)
The authors of a new academic study explore the effect of political differences on how we give to charity.
Even Democrats admit this if they are honest. The only way left-wingers even attempt to claim they are charitable, is by claiming taxation and social programs are charity. Well that's not charity. Charity doesn't involve your income being confiscated from you by force, and given to someone else without your consent.
Charity is when you make the choice to give money without any compulsion, to another person or cause, for the benefit of a stranger.
And if tax and spend policies were in fact charity, then you wouldn't see left-wingers themselves doing everything in their power to avoid the taxation.
No, that's not true either. Pacific Garden Mission, Lutheran Ministries, Samaritan's Purse, and numerous others, are spending mostly to help people.
Further, the church itself helps people in their own functions. 49% and 23% on missions, includes for example addiction service, and counseling that is provided to church members free of charge.
My father was a free marriage and mental health counselor.
Moreover, I've seen videos where churches were used as shelters and hospitals for emergencies, like the floods out west.
Now obviously I can't speak for every single christian, or every single church, but when I talk about charity, I'm not talking about giving to the church even. I don't even include that. When I say charity, I mean money that I have given to charitable organizations that help people. Again, like those above, such as Lutheran Ministries, Samartian's Purse, Pacific Garden Mission, and others.
These are not churches. They are literally charity organizations.
Further, I think you greatly underestimate the amount of time and money given, that doesn't include dollars through the church.
For example my parents church has a group that makes food, and visits children stuck at the Ronald McDonald house. People all over the world send their kids to the US, to get health care that their socialized health care systems do not provide. But they are here alone, without friends or family. Our church sends people there all the time. They spend their time, and their own money, buying food, toys and games, and playing with these isolated people.
You can't quantify that on spreadsheet, because it isn't recorded anywhere.
I myself, have worked hours on hours at the homeless shelter. You don't see that in a ledger.
The year before last, my church ran a winter coat drive for kids in poverty, so that everyone in the city could freely get a coat for their children. We had hundreds on hundreds. So many that all the stores in the area, were completely empty of coats.
That was thousands on thousands of dollars. None of it shows up on charitable giving, and it required hundreds of hours of time by church members to organize, and then hand out the coats.
So, no. Sorry, nice thought, but no. Conservatives are vastly more charitable than left-wingers, even if you try and tease out church operational costs. Just no.
I think the difference is a fundamental view of what charity really is.
You, at least from this perspective... seem to be implying that money is what charity is. That throwing money at stuff, is how you define "helping people". But if throwing money at people helped, then we should have no people left to help in this world.
From the 1964 LBJ war on poverty, until today, we have spent $22 Trillion dollars, and more. Poverty is not any better today, than back in the 1960s, and in many cases is worse.
I would say that the programs and systems run by Conservative Christians does dramatically more good for society, and the poor, and the needy, than any "throw money at them" program that left-wingers tend to support.
Just think about it logically. Which program is going to have a better long term result: A program that gives money to someone who refuses to work, or a program that pushes that same person to get a job and work their way up the income ladder?
After you get a job and work, you'll be making more money, and moving up in the world.
After you are on welfare, you start again at the bottom rung of the economy.
Which one of those really helps?
And what are some of the keys that lift people out of poverty? Being a better person. Having a "protestant work ethic". Showing up on time. Working consistently and with honesty and integrity.
Welfare and food stamps can't teach you that. Yet all those things I've heard preached and taught at multiple Christian churches.
That's more likely to help you get a job, and get promoted, than any left-wing welfare program.
And Jesus did build a Grand Theater. It was called the Temple, and it was more grand, more expensive, and required more money than any church in the US, and Jesus even paid the Temple Tax in Matthew 17.
And Jesus was G-d. G-d said in Malachi chapter 3:
"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it."
So Jesus was very much pro-church.
Racists and bigots don’t like diversity. Everyone one else knows that just like a stock portfolio diversity optimizes.Not everyone likes diversity. In fact, most non-whites don't like it, hence why most non-white majority countries aren't very diverse. Poland just happens to be a majority white country that isn't very diverse.98% ethnically Poles. Way to flee diversity.Leaving is expensive, but it is probably the safest option in the long run.
Personally, I've been looking at Poland, but I have to learn the language first.
Church can be very self satisfying. You are preached about being loved. I think it’s a positive impact. BUT almost all the donations go to generating the message to parishioners. A very small piece goes towards helping people outside that service. Definitely some. They do food drives etc. My point is the difference in giving in the parties is essentially represented by the money spent on preaching to the choir.I respectfully disagree.My point is that most of that money - salary, facilities, dues, and most of programs - goes to entertaining oneself in a religious setting. Absolutely, I agree, some small portion of that is the pastors time consoling people for loss and such but it’s not lifting people out of poverty or curing illness which is true charity. Jesus didn’t build himself a grand theater to worship. He helped the poor and sick.If you adjust for church funding, which 90% helps church functions not people Democrats give more. Here is how churches spend money: 49% on personnel, 23% on facilities, 11% on missions, 10% on programs, 6% on dues. Almost all the charity Republicans give to churches is for themselves , not other people.Nah, they are just more gullible and give more to their churches. Those goobers will believe ANYTHING.Republicans are nicer people, they donate more to charity,
No, that's a fact. That is researched, and documented fact.
View attachment 460139
View attachment 460140
Liberal Kristof Admits Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals
Liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof once again displayed his counterintuitive bona fides. In his Sunday column, "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," Kristof (just in time for Christmas) admitted to being disturbed by a survey showing that liberals, for all their talk of compassion, are less charitable...
How Political Ideology Influences Charitable Giving (Published 2018)
The authors of a new academic study explore the effect of political differences on how we give to charity.
Even Democrats admit this if they are honest. The only way left-wingers even attempt to claim they are charitable, is by claiming taxation and social programs are charity. Well that's not charity. Charity doesn't involve your income being confiscated from you by force, and given to someone else without your consent.
Charity is when you make the choice to give money without any compulsion, to another person or cause, for the benefit of a stranger.
And if tax and spend policies were in fact charity, then you wouldn't see left-wingers themselves doing everything in their power to avoid the taxation.
No, that's not true either. Pacific Garden Mission, Lutheran Ministries, Samaritan's Purse, and numerous others, are spending mostly to help people.
Further, the church itself helps people in their own functions. 49% and 23% on missions, includes for example addiction service, and counseling that is provided to church members free of charge.
My father was a free marriage and mental health counselor.
Moreover, I've seen videos where churches were used as shelters and hospitals for emergencies, like the floods out west.
Now obviously I can't speak for every single christian, or every single church, but when I talk about charity, I'm not talking about giving to the church even. I don't even include that. When I say charity, I mean money that I have given to charitable organizations that help people. Again, like those above, such as Lutheran Ministries, Samartian's Purse, Pacific Garden Mission, and others.
These are not churches. They are literally charity organizations.
Further, I think you greatly underestimate the amount of time and money given, that doesn't include dollars through the church.
For example my parents church has a group that makes food, and visits children stuck at the Ronald McDonald house. People all over the world send their kids to the US, to get health care that their socialized health care systems do not provide. But they are here alone, without friends or family. Our church sends people there all the time. They spend their time, and their own money, buying food, toys and games, and playing with these isolated people.
You can't quantify that on spreadsheet, because it isn't recorded anywhere.
I myself, have worked hours on hours at the homeless shelter. You don't see that in a ledger.
The year before last, my church ran a winter coat drive for kids in poverty, so that everyone in the city could freely get a coat for their children. We had hundreds on hundreds. So many that all the stores in the area, were completely empty of coats.
That was thousands on thousands of dollars. None of it shows up on charitable giving, and it required hundreds of hours of time by church members to organize, and then hand out the coats.
So, no. Sorry, nice thought, but no. Conservatives are vastly more charitable than left-wingers, even if you try and tease out church operational costs. Just no.
I think the difference is a fundamental view of what charity really is.
You, at least from this perspective... seem to be implying that money is what charity is. That throwing money at stuff, is how you define "helping people". But if throwing money at people helped, then we should have no people left to help in this world.
From the 1964 LBJ war on poverty, until today, we have spent $22 Trillion dollars, and more. Poverty is not any better today, than back in the 1960s, and in many cases is worse.
I would say that the programs and systems run by Conservative Christians does dramatically more good for society, and the poor, and the needy, than any "throw money at them" program that left-wingers tend to support.
Just think about it logically. Which program is going to have a better long term result: A program that gives money to someone who refuses to work, or a program that pushes that same person to get a job and work their way up the income ladder?
After you get a job and work, you'll be making more money, and moving up in the world.
After you are on welfare, you start again at the bottom rung of the economy.
Which one of those really helps?
And what are some of the keys that lift people out of poverty? Being a better person. Having a "protestant work ethic". Showing up on time. Working consistently and with honesty and integrity.
Welfare and food stamps can't teach you that. Yet all those things I've heard preached and taught at multiple Christian churches.
That's more likely to help you get a job, and get promoted, than any left-wing welfare program.
And Jesus did build a Grand Theater. It was called the Temple, and it was more grand, more expensive, and required more money than any church in the US, and Jesus even paid the Temple Tax in Matthew 17.
And Jesus was G-d. G-d said in Malachi chapter 3:
"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it."
So Jesus was very much pro-church.
I voted that "I think we can make it together", but only under the right leadership can it be done. We don't have that, and because of that we have a huge portion of the voters being led in the wrong way. It's really sad, because just a few or more decades ago we all got along great, then the radicals finally got enough power to destroy everything they touch. The internet has empowered devil's (evil characters), straight out of hell, where as Satan is smiling like a mule eating briars these days. That's alright though, because his influential days are numbered. Enjoy the evilness for the short time that it last leftist, because the time is drawing near.
I voted that "I think we can make it together", but only under the right leadership can it be done.
The left keeps drifting further and further into Socialism/ Communism. There is no middle-ground between constitutionalism and Communism. The best leadership in the world cannot reconcile the two. The only way is for one side to capitulate to the other, which the Democrats demand.
This is why the subject of separating into two countries is an important discussion. As when I posted the topic myself just a few years ago, people on the right have much less of a problem with it than people on the left who totally resent the idea. Why is that? Because we know our way is the best, and they know their way is the worst; it only looks good on paper much like Communism always has.
I voted that "I think we can make it together", but only under the right leadership can it be done.
The left keeps drifting further and further into Socialism/ Communism. There is no middle-ground between constitutionalism and Communism. The best leadership in the world cannot reconcile the two. The only way is for one side to capitulate to the other, which the Democrats demand.
This is why the subject of separating into two countries is an important discussion. As when I posted the topic myself just a few years ago, people on the right have much less of a problem with it than people on the left who totally resent the idea. Why is that? Because we know our way is the best, and they know their way is the worst; it only looks good on paper much like Communism always has.
You do know that the Socialist/Communist battle cry has failed,don't you? It's been replaced by the Rumpster Terrorist and Traitors.
thehill.com
So if Republicans are tired of the Constitution, where would they move?
Most states have Democrats and Republicans. Do you know of a land without people for a people without land?
So if Republicans are tired of the Constitution, where would they move?
Most states have Democrats and Republicans. Do you know of a land without people for a people without land?
No, Republicans love our Constitution. It's the left that hates it as we've witnessed this last phony impeachment. The Democrat Constitution is the book 1984, and they are using the techniques described in it such as Thought Police to attack people on the right like President Trump. Now they are trying to pass a bill to virtually disarm law abiding citizens, which is yet another constitutional right they hate.
So dividing the US into two or three smaller countries is the solution. There is no other land for the right to move to that has more freedom, more citizens rights, more law abiding, more capitalist than the US. On the left however, there are many places to go to exercise their way to live. There is North Korea, Cuba, Communist China, just a host of other places they would be much happier in. They just won't move, and unfortunately, we can't force them either.
